The Bozeman weekly chronicle. (Bozeman, Mont.) 1883-1889, 1887-07-27
IMPORTANT LAND DECISIONS,
The Discovering OF q Law or Great IN
terest to Railroad Land Settlers.

| settlers along the lines thereon, tina
seems to have been forgotten bv goot
many people, including the supreme
court of the United States, unless th'
opinions apparently in conflict are capa
BILE of constructions that do not appea
on their face. The case decided to-day
comes from the Bozeman land distric
A man named Woodwork located Marcf
81, 1872, on piece of ground that wa,
an odd section within the granted line'
of the the Northern Pacific railroad, &C.
cording to the map of general route filed
in the office of the secretary of the in.
terror Feb. 81, 1872, one month earlier
thai the settlement of Woodwork, and
also according to the map of definite
location filed July, 6 1882. Woodwork
lived on his tract till 1876, and made
considerable improvements. and then
sold out to a man named Burns. In 1875
the general land Office cancelled the entry
of Woodworth. This knocked Burns out
but, on the local land officers rejecting
his entry, he appealed to the general
land Office, which sustained Burns Feb.
Is, 1886, on the ground that map of the
general route was without effect against
settlers upon the lands prior to the date
of filing of map pufporting to be of de-
finite location. The secretary does not
make the point here, but it seems very
| "a, tl,at III ,,, 1904
revised decision by a preceding com.
missioner in 1873, which the secretary
only few days ago held that he had no
| power to do. 1t was also only few days
ago that the secretary decided that un-
der the supreme court decision in Buttz
against Northern Pacific, the moment
the map Of general route of this particu-
lar railroad was filed in in the secre-
| tary's office, the statute of 1864 making
the grant withdrew from settlement all
the odd sections within the limits of the
grant al indicated by this map of general
route. On this point, therefore, he
again reverses the commissioner. But
the secretary finds point in the case
before him that was not in the Buttz
case, and in the secretary's opinion it is
the controlling element. The secretary
says:
"The map of general route was filed
Feb. 81, 1872, the withdrawal was order
cd April %, and notice thereof reached
the local land Office May 6, 1872, more
than month after Woodworth made
his entry. The act of April 81, 1876, pro.
vides that all pre-. emption and home.
stead entries. or entries in compliance
with any law of the United States of the
public lands, made in good faith by
actual settlers, upon tacts of land Of moi
more than 160 acres each, within the
limits of any land grant, prior to the
time when notice of the withdrawal o
the lands embraced in such. grant wa.
received at the local land office of the
district on which such lands are situated
or after their restoration to market by
order of the general land office, ant
where the presumption and Homestead
laws have been complied with, and pro
per proofs thereof have been made By
the parties holding such tracts or parcels
shall be confirmed, and patents for tn,
sams shall issue to the parties if entitled
= thereto.
Section 2. That when, at the time o
such withdrawal as aforesaid. valid pre-
emption or homestead claims exist upol
any such grants, which afterward wer'
abandoned, and under the decisions ant
rulings of the land department were re
entered by pre-emption or Homestead
claimants who have complied with th'
laws governing pie-emption or home
stead entries, and shall make the prope
proofs required under such laws, sucl
enteries shall be deemed valid, and pat
ents shall issue therefore to the persol
entitled thereto"
This act was not before the court il
the Buttz case, nor was it necessary t
the decision therein. 1t is well settle,
that acts in parimateria are to be con
strued as one. Applying that maxim t
the acts here under consideration,
seems necessary to conclude that upol
filing of the map of general route 9Th
law withdraws for sale or pre.emptiol
the odd sectiens." subject, however, t
the provisions of the act of April 81, ls7t
In this view, it is not in conflict with tn
decision in the Buttz case to hold tina
the land in question was not affected b
the withdrawal on general route. TIL
act of 1876 was passed for the purpose c
confirming enteries made in good fait
by actual settlers after the date of film
: of the map, and prior to the receipt {
notice of sail filing by the local officer
, The homestead claim of Woodwork We
, in existence prior to the receipt of sue
! notice at the local office, and therefor
! expected the tract from the operation I
the withdrawal The claim of the pr
sent applicant excepted the tract frol
withdrawal on definite location. tt
company has therefore no valid claim
the land.